• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Understanding Pro-war Christians' Indifference to Civilian Deaths

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by Word of Peace, Oct 24, 2004.

  1. Whyzdom

    Whyzdom Biblicist

    +138
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    I am not sure if you realize this, but we have been doing this long before President Bush took office... What do you call World War II when we went and fought the Germans?

    As for a poor.. uneducated state not putting up a fight.. we thought Saddam's Army would put up a bigger fight.. but they didn't. The man used Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people... who is to say that he wouldn't have done it again.. only this time.. say he did it to Iran...or Israel...
     
  2. Whyzdom

    Whyzdom Biblicist

    +138
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    Yeah.. I remember them darn German Planes hitting Pearl Harbor...
     
  3. TheBear

    TheBear Free Agent

    +1,661
    Atheist
    Private
    When I see people getting their heads sawn off with a knife while still alive and conscience, and when I hear religeous chants and praises to God while they're sawing off the heads, I wonder why there's not 100-times the number of stories about Muslims. I guess it's more PC to bash Christianity as a whole, while at the same time, exonerate and coddle all Muslims.
     
  4. Word of Peace

    Word of Peace Evangelical Quaker, YEC

    +35
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    When I posted this article, my intention was not to imply that all people who support(ed) the war are blood-thirsty* - however, I should have realized that it may have seemed like I was doing so, especially since the author seems to have that slant. I personally know several people whom I believe to be true followers of Christ who believe or believed this war to be just and the right thing to do - and I know there are many others. I apologize for not clarifying this when I posted the article. :sorry:

    *And even with many of those who justify this war according to some of the reasons outlined in the article, the term 'bloodthirsty' is IMO too strong.
     
  5. Doctrine1st

    Doctrine1st Official nitwit

    +431
    US-Others
    Once again, despite your nonsensical comment, Hitler declared war on the U.S. in his alligence and support with Japan.
     
  6. Vylo

    Vylo Stick with the King!

    +4,693
    Atheist
    US-Others


    Excellent point there. I find Islam to be much less tolerant then Christianity on the whole, but I find Christianity to be muc more invasive. Crusdades, missionaries, and evangalists are the classical images of christians. They are content with just having their congregation they want to grow, and in an agressive way. Christians may have eliminated the slaughters of the past, but this may only be because of the size of their religion, and they still keep the pressure on. Screaming at people, telling them they are going to hell and should repent, shunning loved ones who have different beliefs, and simple door to door evangalism are the features of modern christianity that we deal with in our modern life.

    Muslisms may despise us (obviously not all but it is in their doctrine), but they tend to keep more reserved about it, so long as you stay out of their land. They are more then willing to teach about their religion if asked, but do not take the same pushy attitude that many of us are accustomed to when dealing with Christians. Because the more fanatical and less tolerant Muslims live across the world and have little intent on moving into our town, county, state, or even country we tend to be more forgiving of them. Because Christians surround us and tend to try to push their beliefs aggressively, we often push back at them.
     
  7. gnombient

    gnombient reformed librarie-keeper

    +50
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    The American War of Independence wasn't engineered by another country; the French didn't say "oh, those poor Americans suffering under the tyrant King George must be liberated!" WE decided we wanted to rule ourselves, WE organized to fight the British, WE declared our independence; it wasn't decided for us by someone else. (However, if it weren't for French economic and military aid we might not have been victorious...)
    The United States was still in isolationist mode when Hitler had already invaded Western Europe (France had already fallen, IIRC); it wasn't until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the Axis powers declared war on the US that we actually went to war.
    Sure, Saddam was a bad guy, the Iraqi people hated him and are better off without him. (I can't say I agree with the method, but what's done is done.) However, the more we compare mini-villains like Saddam to a true monster like Hitler, the more diluted the real evil Hitler represented becomes.
    I agree that to some extent, all wars are unjust. Civilians die, crops and homes are destroyed, people are displaced, etc. There are times though when war can certainly seem justifiable. Fighting against the spread of seemingly unstoppable Nazi legions across the face of Europe (and the evil of the Holocaust) can be justified. Rising up as united colonies against England to claim our own independence could be justified. Playing regime change in an already-volatile region against a petty dictator with a decimated military force-- well... :scratch:
     
  8. Philosoft

    Philosoft Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

    +170
    Atheist
    Well... isn't it? Do we just get to arbitrarily decide which peoples are oppressed enough to warrant invasion?
    Physically broken and jobless until just recently. But things are looking up, as they always manage to do.
    Doesn't usually require overthrowing governments.
    See above.
    See above.
    See above.
    Well, I have to be skeptical of your insinuation that Bush is doing this out of some sense of Christian duty. The man is a politician, first and foremost. Oppressed peoples weren't even worthy of public comment from the administration until our search for WMDs turned up empty.
    Perhaps, but the underlying philosophy doesn't change. Currently, we're allegedly trying to negotiate with North Korea, not because North Koreans are economically and politically oppressed - and they are - but because Jong Il has nukes.
    I'm a little slow on the uptake here... what's this argument? That our invasion was justified because we didn't agree with the UN's program?
     
  9. Philosoft

    Philosoft Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

    +170
    Atheist
    I call that, at best, two examples in 60 years. Vietnam, perhaps, but our motives were hardly sparkling in that case - 'Communists are bad atheists! Attack!'
    Was this before or after Bush declared victory aboard a carrier?
    And these chemical weapons would come from where?
     
  10. Whyzdom

    Whyzdom Biblicist

    +138
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    Somalia, Grenada, and various other little conflicts.. lest we forget those huh.

    Does it matter?

    Probably his chemical labs.. ya think? Who is to say he wasn't going to make more? We also gave Israel nuclear weapons... have they used them? You can't blame the U.S. because Saddam used Chemical weapons on his own people... that is like blaming gun manufacturers because some idiot stole a gun and killed someone.
     
  11. Philosoft

    Philosoft Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

    +170
    Atheist
    Somalia didn't have much of a government at the time, so it's not like we were overthrowing or deposing. Grenada was yet again about Communism.

    You can try, but I just don't think you'll be able to show that altruism is often a core motivation for US invasions.
    Well, you say the administration expected heavier resistance at the outset, Bush gives the "major operations are over" carrier speech, then "insurgents" show up and it gets really ugly.

    I guess I'd just like a little consistency.
    The ones located... where?
    I don't see the point blaming anyone. I'm just saying, Saddam was obviously ruthless and somewhat megalomaniacal, but he gave no indication he was insane enough to use WMDs against the invading force. The US has used WMDs when sufficiently provoked, and I figure Hussein knew that.
     
  12. Whyzdom

    Whyzdom Biblicist

    +138
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    So you didn't disprove me... ok.

    Considering the insurgents came from different countries mostly, and Bush made that statement when we had defeated the major divisions of Saddam's Army. How is that hard to understand?

    It took us going in to find out there weren't any.. didn't it.

    A man that used Chemical Weapons on his own people... he killed thousands upon thousands without Chemical Weapons.. as shown by the multitude of Mass Graves. What about the mass grave that was all women and children.. which included even pregnant women? If he would have had a Chemical/Biological Weapon.. which even his Generals thought they still had, he would have used it on our troops. To think otherwise is being naive and foolish.
     
  13. Philosoft

    Philosoft Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

    +170
    Atheist
    Pardon? I think I've addressed every example you mentioned. I hope you're not talking about the "various other little conflicts" part.
    I wasn't aware the insurgents "came from different countries mostly." Source?
    I dunno, did it? Did our intelligence suggest he had active chemical weapons plants?
    Really, now. I hardly think Saddam was terribly afraid of a massive military backlash from the Kurds. Think about the groups you're comparing first before you go throwing around pejoratives.
     
  14. Vylo

    Vylo Stick with the King!

    +4,693
    Atheist
    US-Others
    No it didn't. Many already knew.

    Hard for him to use something he doesn't have.
     
  15. Whyzdom

    Whyzdom Biblicist

    +138
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    You didn't refute them.. You opinionated about them, but you never refuted them.

    Do your own research. It might clear things up a bit for ya.

    So now you can read Saddam's mind? Think logically for a few seconds, he used them once.. which removed all doubts of his inability to use them again. Tough concept I know, but a very honest one.
     
  16. drboyd

    drboyd Well-Known Member

    +183
    Christian
    US-Others
    John Mellencamp, "Walk Tall"
     
  17. jameseb

    jameseb Smite me, O Mighty Smiter!

    +1,923
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    First, I don't care for the insinuation being made in the title.

    I support war in Iraq.

    If I was "indifferent " to the death of 2 million people that have died as a result of Saddam's wars of greed and the mass-murder of his own population, including acts of geneocide against the Kurds, then I'd be against the war.

    Having said that, I don't believe people opposed to the war are necessarily indifferent; some believe there's just absolutely no justification for war. I respect that.... unlike some who suggest that people such as I are bloodthirsty warmongers. They should try to think more "liberally" about other viewpoints instead of being so closed-minded and.... full of angry words and sarcasm. I always found such venom particularly ironic coming from "peace-lovers."
     
  18. Anduron

    Anduron Member

    458
    +5
    Christian
    US-Republican
    Alrighty. How does one value life?

    Say if someone is in danger of being killed by their own government and you have the ability and power to protect that life, would you not do so? Than someone might say, "Even if that means killing other innocents, I think not!" but than someone might say, "How many more have to die before one takes action to protect that life?" and than one might say,"You let that one die so the others may live," than one might say, "So that person lives, yet 200 more take that persons place?" and one might say,"Being in a situation in which taking a life to protect life, stinks. No matter what is done someone is going to die. But if you do what you can, and do whatever you can to avoid taking the innocent lives, in the end more lives shall not perish because of this," and one might say,"So the ends justify the means?! Killing life to protect life?! That's absurd." During all this endless debating and the arguments, that person dies as well as hundreds of more.

    Saddam had killed many before the war in Iraq started, and if left in power would have continued to kill more Iraqis. Getting the idea that, it's okay to condemn Bush for taking action and taking out Saddam, but it was okay for Saddam to kill Iraqis?

    One thing it comes down too is...How many people are you willing to let die, when you have the power and ability to put an end to that killing?
     
  19. MaryS

    MaryS Well-Known Member

    +131
    Christian
    US-Republican
    There are some moderate followers of Islam, but to the radical followers they are also considered infidels. There may be some pushy Christians, but I haven't heard of many that are out to convert people by force.

    Omar Ahmad,
    Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
    President & CEO of Silicon Expert Technologies, he is a Palestinian who grew up in a refugee camp in Jordan.

    " Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant...
    The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in
    America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth," -Omar Ahmad

    LOUIS FARRAKHAN (of the Nation of Islam) CONDEMNS AMERICA AND THE
    JEWS
    http://www.adl.org/presrele/NatIsl_81/2686_81.asp
     
  20. MaryS

    MaryS Well-Known Member

    +131
    Christian
    US-Republican
    That antiwar.com site is run by paleoconservative fruitcakes. Here's another example of what that site puts out:
    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3479

    (excerpt:
    Let the neocons scream "McCarthyism!" all they want. Because McCarthy was right – and so are those of us who have been pointing to Israeli subversion of U.S. national security since November of 2001. AIPAC must come clean, or be disbanded.
     
Loading...